Taxing our patience —

Missouri lawmaker latest to propose “violent” games tax

1% excise tax would apply to games rated T and up by ESRB.

Recent mass shootings have prompted one Missouri lawmaker to propose an additional tax on "violent" games, despite those tragedies lacking a proven link to games, the failure of similar measures in other states, and the likely unconstitutionality of such a tax.

Republican State Representative Diane Franklin of rural Camdenton has introduced House Bill 157 (PDF) that would add a one percent excise tax on the sale of games rated T or above by the ESRB. That wide umbrella would include violence-free games like Guitar Hero and Ultimate Card Games that received a T rating for "suggestive lyrics" and "simulated gambling," respectively. But hey, at least Call of Duty would set someone back an additional 60¢ under the plan.

Money raised by the proposed tax would go toward "the treatment of mental health conditions associated with exposure to violent video games," according to the language of the bill. That's a bit odd, because while there is conflictingevidence on whether video games can lead to an increase in loosely defined "aggression" or violent feelings, we're not aware of any studies that link exposure to violent video games to the development of mental health conditions. Never mind that, though; "history shows there is a mental health component to these shootings," Franklin said, according to the AP.

Even if this Missouri bill were to somehow buck the trend and be signed into law, there's some question about whether or not such selective taxation would be altogether legal. The Supreme Court established full First Amendment protection for video games in 2011, and there's significant case law (PDF) suggesting that the government can't single out a specific type of speech for taxation absent a "compelling state interest."

All in all, we should be less worried about the actual threat posed by these kind of proposed taxes and more concerned with the fact that bills aimed at violent video games continue to be a favorite cudgel for some legislators to try to score cheap political points.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

What ever happened to learning from past mistakes. Do these law makers live under a rock? They have tried and failed multiple times in multiple states. Additionally, the protections have grown stronger recently, so when will they get a clue? They would never even dream of trying something like this to TV and film.

When Congress passed the unconstitutional National Firearms Act in 1934 to ban certain types of notorious arms like machineguns, the tax stamp was $200 -- at least 150% of the retail value of even the most expensive of those guns. Despite the punitive stamp price, the really onerous part was having to apply to the government to be able to buy the tax stamp before any regulated transfer could take place, months later when the tax stamp arrived in the mail. This was entirely separate from the substantial excise tax already placed on firearms.

So the question is: if the power to tax is the power to destroy, can civil rights be punitively taxed? The Supreme Court says no for voting but yes for arms. Can there be a tax on speech?

In the latest news of the knee jerking of American politics and attempts at placing blame elsewhere along with an attempt to garnish some extra cash and notoriety....

Rhetorical, but why do these politicians damn near bet themselves and their colleagues to death trying to belly up to the trough of making swift, unstable choices and changes in laws instead of actually trying to accomplish something balanced and thoroughly thought through? Being first is not necessarily all it's cracked up to be.

I would say no, for it would impose a form of have and have nots, which is what my understanding of most of the constitution is against(I'm not wholly versed in it, so pardon my not quite being on target). If only the rich can pay taxes to make speeches, where does that leave the poor who cannot? Without a voice and without any kind of say so in the government they are allowed to be part of by the standing constitution we have today is my take. But is appears at times the wealthy are more than happy to want to make things this way. But I digress...

I don't know about you guys, but in my childhood I learned about violent death mainly by watching Marty Stouffer's "Wild America". Watching an animated FPS pales in comparison to watching a real life little critter getting mauled by a cougar.

So to protect the 2nd amendment they want to take away the 1st amendment. Honestly I think anyone who feels the need to own an assault weapon is mentally unstable.

This has nothing to do with "protecting" the 2nd amendment. This is all about getting some easy political points by attacking an easy target. You could completely ban all forms of guns and there would still be crazy people doing crazy things (the biggest school massacre in US history was actually carried out using homemade bombs near the start of the 20th century, but nobody remembers that).

Attacking the 2nd amendment or violent video games is not the solution to the problem. The problem is the state of the mental health system in the US. The solution is to work to improve that. The 2nd amendment may or may not cause its own problems, but it does not cause this problem. Notice the word "cause".

BTKO wrote:

Wait a second, aren't Republicans vehemently against increased taxation and government intervention?

The problem is there's the philosophy, the people that call themselves "Republicans", the political party, and then the politicians. All of which say different things, but use the same label. The latter two, like every political party and politician, only interested in their own advancement, the former two are just useful tools to bring about said advancement.